Santa Ana, Calif. – A federal judge has tentatively ruled that rapper T.I. Harris and his wife, Tameka “Tiny” Harris, should not be awarded more than $53 million in punitive damages, despite their recent court win entitling them to $17.8 million in profits linked to a doll line by MGA Entertainment Inc. This comes from a contentious trademark infringement battle concerning the Harris’ claims that MGA’s dolls mirrored their musical group, OMG Girlz.
The decision, announced by U.S. District Judge James Selna, noted insufficient evidence to demonstrate MGA’s actions merited the steep punitive damages initially decided by the jurors. The profit figure of $17.8 million stemmed directly from sales of seven specific dolls in question, which were argued to have drawn unauthorized inspiration from the OMG Girlz.
Judge Selna pointed out that while some evidence suggested MGA’s doll designs could be seen as imitations, this did not conclusively prove intentional infringement, a necessary element under the Lanham Act. “The evidence shows MGA and its CEO Isaac Larian may have been negligent in probing the infringement claims but lacked the reckless or intentional conduct needed for punitive measures,” Selna explained.
Despite not awarding punitive damages, Selna stated that the evidence did indeed indicate that MGA’s designers had replicated iconic figures in their doll line. “Witnesses often presented dolls that seemed to replicate popular figures, and while the designers offered explanations, they couldn’t always convincingly refute the resemblance,” he added.
Additionally, Selna dismissed the notion of consumer confusion as a factor because Tameka Harris had considered but ultimately did not pursue creating a similar doll line after prototypes failed to meet her expectations. He believed the verdict that commands MGA to forfeit all profits from the seven implicated dolls would sufficiently deter future infringements.
The Harris family had earlier floated the idea of their own doll line but ceased development when early doll models did not match their vision. Tameka Harris shared her joy over the ruling, stating, “We’re just elated,” which underscored the emotional victory after previously facing a mistrial and previous court setbacks.
MGA’s defense, articulated by their legal representatives, insisted that there had been no customer confusion or complaints that hinted at the alleged resemblance between the dolls and the OMG Girlz, despite the line sold 45 million dolls. They argued that the financial penalty of forfeiting all doll profits should serve as adequate punishment and a clear message.
The case notes shed light on an earlier motion by MGA in 2020 seeking declaratory relief following the Harris’s infringement claims, which the company deemed baseless at that time. The reformed OMG Girlz had last performed in 2017, which added to the complex nature of the trademark discussions.
Legal analyst Paul Loh, representing MGA, expressed that this punitive damages ruling aligns with their view that MGA hadn’t intentionally harmed the OMG Girlz brand or misleadingly suggested a partnership through the doll line.
The proceedings serve as a reminder of the ongoing battles in intellectual property rights involving key figures in the entertainment industry and major corporations. It also highlights the potential shifts in legal strategies following new Supreme Court decisions that influence how First Amendment considerations intersect with trademark disputes.
This article was automatically written by OpenAI. The people, facts, circumstances, and the story described may contain inaccuracies. For corrections or retractions, please contact contact@publiclawlibrary.org.